Residential Trajectories of Households Participating in Baltimore's Housing Mobility Program

Purpose: Households participating in the Housing Choice Voucher program typically live in neighborhoods that are, at best, moderately higher quality relative to other assisted households (Devine et al, 2003). Time constraints, landlord discrimination, and a desire to remain in familiar communities can contribute to vouchered households remaining in high-poverty neighborhoods (DeLuca et al., 2013). Results from the MTO experiment show that even when families are assisted with relocation to more advantaged neighborhoods, responses to changing family needs often bring them back to high-poverty neighborhoods (Rosenblatt & DeLuca, 2012). Such residential trajectories are discouraging, particularly considering recent evidence that cumulative exposure to high-opportunity neighborhoods improves educational and economic outcomes for low-income children (Chetty, Hendren, & Katz, 2016). A policy dilemma emerges from evidence that despite the value of cumulative exposure to high-quality neighborhoods, families face challenges in entering and remaining in high-opportunity neighborhoods (Boyd et al, 2010). Using data from the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (BHMP), a recent housing opportunity mobility program, we examine the types of residential trajectories among families in a housing opportunity mobility program and how families make these relocation decisions.

Methods: We use data from the BHMP, a voucher mobility program that has assisted 3000 families in relocation. BHMP families were required to use vouchers in low-poverty, racially-integrated neighborhoods and permitted to relocate with no locational restrictions after one year. BHMP used a higher rent payment standard and offered intensive housing search assistance, security deposit assistance, and voucher portability. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a random subsample of 110 program participants, which included detailed discussions of residential histories and relocation decisions. We observe dates and locations of moves in the administrative data and append census tract characteristics from several sources to measure neighborhood quality. We use sequence analysis to identify types of residential trajectories based on neighborhood quality, accounting for various household characteristics. Using qualitative interviews, we examine how participants describe their residential histories after entry into BHMP and what factors contribute to their decisions around neighborhood selection.

Results: Over 60% of families made a second residential move within two years after their initial relocation, which were typically short-distance moves to similar neighborhoods. Among those staying in low-poverty neighborhoods, most participants moved in response to a specific issue: 1) changing family needs that required a different unit 2) landlord conflict and 3) housing or neighborhood quality concerns. Participants described approaching relocation options differently than they did when living unassisted in the city; due to less concerns around safety and violence, they were more able to consider other aspects of a housing unit that they valued, particularly school quality and neighborhood diversity.

Implications: Results suggest potential programmatic opportunities for improving the chances that families remain in high-quality neighborhoods. Housing search counseling and assistance navigating landlord conflicts may help families to remain in their desired unit. Our results also highlight the value of mobility programs themselves, which enable families to consider other aspects of high-quality neighborhoods such as school quality that can foster long-term economic mobility.